iiNet judgment day: 4 February 2010
The Federal Court has confirmed that the AFACT v iiNet judgment will be handed down on Thursday, 4 February 2010.
The decision is surprisingly quick given the trial only concluded at the end of November last year.
At that time, iiNet CEO, Michael Malone, said in a press release that he was confident the Court would find that the ISP had no case to answer and dismiss AFACT’s claims.
We’ll find out on Thursday if Malone’s confidence was well placed.
SMS spammers suffer ‘no show’ judgment
We reported in January 2009 that ACMA had launched legal action against a bunch of companies and individuals alleged to be involved in an illegal SMS spam racket.
Five of the respondents to the Federal Court action have failed to take necessary procedural steps, and the Court has agreed to ACMA’s application for default judgments. After hearing evidence about the defaults and the original conduct, the Court has ordered:
- that parties including Mobilegate Ltd, Winning Bid Pty Ltd, Simon Anthony Owen, Tarek Andreas Salcedo and Glenn Christopher Maughan have breached the Spam Act and / or Trade Practices Act in various ways;
- that they be restrained from certain conduct, of the kind involved in the scam, for seven years; and
- the matter be re-listed for directions in relation to any penalty hearing as the above respondents on 18 September 2009.
The case against other respondents, who have defended the case, continues.
Telstra fined for Do Not Call breaches
Telstra has paid a $101,200 infringement notice for telemarketing to numbers on the Do Not Call Register more than 30 days after they were registered.
ACMA announced its biggest scalp yet under the new law, following an investigation into calls made by an offshore call centre on behalf of Telstra. Inexplicably, Telstra allowed illegal calls to continue after ACMA had raised concerns based on several complaints.
“The investigation found that inadequate compliance systems, procedures and supervision had contributed to calls being made to numbers on the Register where the consumers were not existing Telstra customers.”
Telstra may be the biggest Do Not Call catch so far for ACMA, but it’s not the record penalty payer. That ‘honour’ belongs to Dodo at $147,400.
A taxing time for carriers
If you hold (or recently held) a communications carrier licence, 28 September 2009 is a key date. That’s the last day for filing an Eligible Revenue Return (‘ERR’) with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (‘ACMA’).
The ERR has a key purpose: To determine what proportion of the national communications subsidy the client will be required to fund.
It’s a very specialised return and carriers have to get it right … and get it in on time. No extension is possible.
Telecommunications law expert Peter Moon explains this unique regime.
Saving legal costs: DIY ‘discovery’
It’s a sad fact of life that ISPs and telcos sometimes end up in court cases. The saddest fact of all is the legal bill that’s usually involved.
From a lawyer’s perspective, there’s a lot that clients can do to save time and money. We’ll look at some key strategies in this series of posts.
Today, let’s look at the legal process of ‘discovery’, and why it needn’t add a small fortune to the bill.
Spot Check: Are your price reduction ads putting you at risk?
NEW mobile phone!! WAS $399 NOW $199!!
BRAND NEW phone!! $199 – SAVE over 50%!!
Ads that show ‘two price’ or ‘was / now’ pricing are common, effective and legal … provided they’re not misleading. There are special rules about how to get ‘was / now” pricing ads right. While care needs to be taken, getting it right is relatively easy.
Getting it wrong can be costly, as the former owners of the Zamel’s jewellery chain have found – the ACCC took them to court over allegedly misleading ‘was / now’ price ads in one of their catalogues. In January 2009, the court handed down a fine of $380,000.
Optus toughens up mobile contract
Last December Optus incurred customer wrath, effectively torpedoing mobile access to cheap international VoIP services by charging them at international rates.
At the time, Optus insisted that:
International calls within the meaning of your Optus Mobile Standard Form of Agreement for all Timeless and Cap plans includes calls that re-route or divert to international numbers.
CSP Central asked Optus to tell us where the SFoA said that. We couldn’t be sure – because the document is a confused mish-mash – but as far as we could tell it said no such thing.
Apparently Optus didn’t feel too sure of its grounds, either. So it has bolted on a powerful, unbalanced new contract term that is sure to attract the interest of consumer regulators who have unfair contract terms legislation in their armory. Today, that’s only Victoria. On 1 January 2010, it will be every Australian State and Territory, and the ACCC.
ACCC hauls Optus into Federal Court
In the latest action in its war on trade practices non-compliance in the telco sector, ACCC has taken Federal Court action against a wholly owned subsidiary of Optus Mobile Pty Ltd.
Prepaid Services Pty Ltd supplies phone cards that are resold by an independent company Boost Tel Pty Ltd.
ACCC alleges that Prepaid and Boost were involved in false advertising.
Component pricing seminar notes available
Seminar notes from today’s popular ‘Component Pricing Law’ seminar at Logie-Smith Lanyon Lawyers are now available for download.
Delivered in our trademark style … plain english guaranteed … the seminar offered practical and expert insights into living harmoniously with the new trade practices law.
We’ll offer a repeat session soon … keep watching.
FunnyTel introduces unit pricing in new mega-value FAT plans
Comms industry leader FunnyTel today announced its ground-breaking FAT plans.
No stranger to innovation – FunnyTel was Australia’s first ISP to introduce the random number billing that has since proved so popular with Telstra management – the FAT plans include Australia’s first internet unit pricing scheme.
‘We read about the Government’s idea for unit pricing with groceries,’ says FunnyTel spokesman Chad Blake. ‘And we thought “This makes sense.” Why should customers pay for an 80 gigs download allowance and not know exactly how many P2P movies they’ll get for their dough ?’
‘We’re actually thinking of applying to the ACCC for an award for this,’ said Blake. ‘Our 2 New Hollywood Releases a Night’ plan is a revolution in truth-in-advertising. ‘And that’s A-FACT !’ says Blake with a cheeky wink.
We asked Chad if he thought that other market leaders like iiNet would adopt the system.
Read more…
Consumer Bill’s bonkers bit
There’s an element in the proposed national unfair contract terms law that:
- isn’t in the Productivity Commission report that recommended the new law
- isn’t in the Victorian law that is already in force in Victoria
- isn’t in the United Kingdom law that served as the model for Victoria’s law, and
- is bonkers.
It makes no sense. It’s bananas. And the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies the Bill admits as much.